Best Practices For School Improvement Planning

Best Practices for School

Improvement Planning
October 2014
In the following report, Hanover Research outlines best practices for school and continuous
improvement planning, focusing on organizational components and methods for
assessment and measurement. In addition, Hanover identifies and describes four effective
models for school improvement.

Hanover Research | October 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Key Findings ................................................................................ 3
KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3
Section I: Essential Components of a School Improvement Plan ......................................... 5
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................... 5
THE SCOPE OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING ............................................................................. 6
Comprehensive Needs Assessment ................................................................................... 7
Prioritization Of Needs .................................................................................................... 10
SETTING GOALS – SELECTING TARGETS, INDICATORS, AND MILESTONES ............................................... 11
Goal Composition ............................................................................................................ 11
Goal Timelines ................................................................................................................. 12
EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES ........................................................................................ 12
School Principals .............................................................................................................. 12
School Improvement Groups ........................................................................................... 13
District Taskforces ............................................................................................................ 13
Section II: Implementation, Measurement, and Assessment ............................................ 15
DATA COLLECTION – HOW IS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT MEASURED? ..................................................... 15
Student Learning .............................................................................................................. 16
Demographics .................................................................................................................. 19
School Environment ......................................................................................................... 20
Implementation ............................................................................................................... 21
ONGOING ASSESSMENT AND DATA‐DRIVEN DECISION‐MAKING ......................................................... 21
COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS ........................................................................................ 23
Section III: Review of Improvement Models ..................................................................... 24
DAGGETT SYSTEM FOR EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 24
RESULTS‐ORIENTED CYCLE OF INQUIRY .......................................................................................... 26
BALANCED SCORECARD MODEL ................................................................................................... 27
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THEORY OF ACTION MODEL ......................................... 28
Appendix A: Comprehensive Needs Assessment Rubric ................................................... 29

© 2014 Hanover Research | District Administration Practice 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

In the following report, Hanover Research examines school improvement and continuous
improvement planning processes in K‐12 education, identifying the most essential
components according to best practices research and well‐tested models. For example,
these essential components include an initial needs assessment, data‐driven decision‐
making, and feasible goals and benchmarks, among other elements. Hanover also examines
effective methods for structuring school and district leadership during school improvement
initiatives, as well as instruments for monitoring improvement according to academic
achievement, behavior, and social‐emotional learning (SEL) indicators. Lastly, Hanover
identifies and describes effective improvement models. This report comprises the following
sections:

 Section I: This section outlines essential components of school improvement and
continuous improvement plans, as identified across various best practices reports
and improvement models
 Section II: This section examines best practices for implementing, measuring, and
assessing school improvement across a variety of metrics
 Section III: This section reviews exemplary improvement models, as identified by
school improvement experts and best practices research

In addition to synthesizing various secondary sources, Hanover Research conducted
interviews with two school improvement experts:

 Catherine Barbour, Principal Turnaround Consultant, Education Program, American
Institutes for Research1
 Nicole Norton, Director, Funded Programs and School Improvement, Minneapolis
Public Schools2

KEY FINDINGS
 Effective school improvement planning models emphasize comprehensive needs
assessments, strategic prioritization of needs, and data‐driven decision‐making.
Experts and scholarly research identify the following evidence‐based models:
o Daggett System for Effective Instruction
o Results‐Oriented Cycle of Inquiry
o Balanced Scorecard Model

1
Telephone interview with Catherine Barbour, Principal Turnaround Consultant, Education Program, American
Institutes for Research, July 11, 2014.
2
Telephone interview with Nicole Norton, Director, Funded Programs and School Improvement, Minneapolis Public
Schools, July 17, 2014.


o Massachusetts Department of Education Theory of Action Model
 Districts should initiate school improvement planning with a comprehensive needs
assessment in order to systematically determine high‐need areas. The needs
assessment should incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data, include
analyses of both internal and external variables, and explicitly link results with
student learning. Additionally, some experts suggest using a third‐party to conduct
the assessment in order to ensure objectivity.
 Districts should organize school‐level and district‐level taskforces to design,
implement, and track improvement efforts. These groups should comprise
representatives from all groups affected by the improvement efforts, including
administrators, teachers, and curriculum directors. Teams should be no larger than
12‐15 people. At the district level, experts emphasize that the primary focus of
leadership teams should be supporting schools in these efforts, rather than
compliance.
 Following a comprehensive needs assessment, district leaders must establish
rigorous yet attainable goals. Setting exceptionally lofty goals may ultimately
demoralize key actors and stakeholders. As such, experts recommend “starting
slow” and leaving room for goals to be adjusted upward later. Experts also suggest
that goals be aligned with the district’s calendar year and divided into small
increments, enabling implementers to effectively track progress.
 Districts should use four primary types of data to evaluate school improvement:
student learning, demographics, school environment, and implementation fidelity.
To assess student learning, districts should examine data on standardized tests,
curriculum delivery, social and emotional learning, attendance, and other variables.
Additionally, demographic data allow decision‐makers to form a thorough
understanding of school subpopulations, including special education students.
Districts typically monitor school environment by using student, teacher, and parent
climate surveys. Lastly, tracking the fidelity of implementation enables districts to
determine if planned processes and goals actualize.
 Throughout the school improvement process, district leaders should communicate
objectives, progress, and results with all relevant stakeholders. Experts note that
districts can build momentum by announcing “quick wins” when data indicate early
success. However, stakeholders should expect initial improvement slumps, and
should be cautious when adjusting original objectives and strategies.


SECTION I: ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

In the following section, Hanover Research outlines essential components of school
improvement and continuous improvement planning gleaned from best practices research,
improvement models, and expert interviews.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT FUNDAMENTALS
Before exploring general best practices, Hanover first defines the primary goals behind
school improvement planning and the major components that it comprises. This definition is
used to anchor findings and recommendations presented throughout the report.

Research and expert interviews define school improvement and continuous improvement
planning as a systematic way of planning school improvement and tracking it over time.3
According to one definition, a school improvement plan is a “road map that sets out the
changes a school needs to make to improve the level of student achievement, and shows
how and when these changes will be made.”4 A different explanation adds that school
improvement involves “quality improvement,” which it defines as “the disciplined use of
evidence‐based quantitative and qualitative methods to improve the effectiveness,
efficiency, equity, timeliness, or safety of service delivery processes and systems.”5 As
districts engage in school improvement and continuous improvement planning processes,
they must embed this concept of quality improvement into the daily activities and tasks of
its various actors.

According to the definitions outlined above, school improvement and continuous
improvement are distinct from processes such as institutional research and audits, as they
aim to reduce the gap between a school’s current level of performance and its actual
potential.6 However, research suggests that school districts often fall short of this active
improvement process when designing and implementing their own plans. For instance,
many districts publish annual strategic plans that are defined as “improvement plans” but
are inconsistent with the actual definition of school and continuous improvement. That is,

3
[1] Telephone interview with Catherine Barbour, Op. cit.
[2] “School Improvement Planning: A Handbook,” Education Improvement Commission – Ontario Ministry of
Education, 2000, p. 6. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/reports/sihande.pdf
[3] Park, S., et al., “Continuous Improvement in Education,” Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,
2013, p. 6. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/sites/default/files/carnegie‐foundation_continuous‐
improvement_2013.05.pdf
[4] “North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation Guide,” North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, September, 2013, p. 18. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/councils/lea/previous/templates/sip‐
guide.pdf
4
“School Improvement Planning: A Handbook,” Op. cit., p. 6.
5
Park, S., et al., Op. cit., p. 4.
6
Ibid.


many districts draft plans that focus heavily on measuring outcomes but ignore actual
processes for improvement, the means for measuring system outcomes, and how all of
these processes may actually function across a district.7

To counteract this potential pitfall, experts advise school districts to draft highly specific
plans that focus on what tasks will be accomplished and who will accomplish them.8
Therefore, school improvement involves integrating quality improvement into the daily
work of individuals within a school district system.9 That is, districts should avoid speaking in
vague terms, such as “[w]e will roll out professional learning communities by subject area,”
and opt for more defined action items.10 At the same time, however, some experts fear that
district improvement plans have become increasingly complicated. They argue that this shift
has demoralized district employees and other stakeholders in ways that have ultimately
stifled academic achievement and growth.11 The debate regarding the sophistication and
specificity required for effective school improvement, coupled with the potential to
overwhelm implementers and muddle results, indicates that particular attention should be
paid to scope when districts are designing school improvement models.

THE SCOPE OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
Districts should determine the scope of school improvement initiatives during the initial
phases of the planning process, before tasks are delegated to key implementers. This
process is two‐fold: identifying areas for improvement and prioritizing these issue areas.12
The former component is a relatively straightforward process in which a district identifies all
of its problem areas. However, the latter component, prioritizing these issue areas, requires
a strategic mindset among district decision‐makers. For this process, the value of focus is
well‐established, and research suggests that including extensive lists of priority areas within
a school improvement plan can weaken the energy of the school. Consequently, experts
recommend that districts target two to five priorities within a school improvement plan.13
Ms. Catherine Barbour, a Principal Turnaround Consultant at the American Institutes for
Research, stresses a “less is best” policy:

7
Ibid, p. 6.
8
[2] “School Improvement Planning: A Handbook,” Op. cit., p. 6.
9
10
Ibid, p. 6.
11
Schmoker, M., “Why Make Reform So Complicated?” Education Week, January 15, 2014.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/01/15/17schmoker_ep.h33.html?qs=school+improvement+planning
12
[1] “North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation Guide,” Op. cit., p. 18.
13
[1] Ibid.
[3] “High School Improvement Process,” National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research.
http://www.betterhighschools.org/eight/process.asp#sip3


Part of the initial process is prioritizing the many identified needs and findings into
two or three high‐need, high‐impact areas and then ensuring that the district stays
focused on those identified areas. Districts are tempted to add on additional
objectives, but they should avoid doing so. You’re not going to be able to address
every area that has been identified; it is impossible to track and monitor that.14

Ignoring certain issue areas for the sake of remaining focused may prove difficult for
districts. However, research suggests that the continuous improvement process ultimately
allows districts to address all issue areas over time. That is, as objectives are met each year,
districts can revise annual plans and introduce new targets into their improvement efforts.15
Ms. Barbour adds that districts should view these improvement components as phases, in
which new issue areas are addressed each year. Under this repeated system, demonstrated
success in initial objectives can catalyze gains in other improvement areas.16

COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
As stated above, the school improvement planning process involves defining a school’s
performance problems. Some researchers and theorists suggest that this task is best
accomplished organically. Meaning, decision‐makers should rely on implicit beliefs and
interpretations of strategies and outcomes that influence behavior.17 However, Ms. Barbour
and others argue that a comprehensive needs assessment must precede any school
improvement planning process. 18 According to the U.S. Department of Education, a
comprehensive needs assessment is a systematic method for determining needs and
examining their nature and causes.19 Several popular school improvement models contain a
comprehensive needs assessment, including the Breaking Ranks Comprehensive Framework
for School Improvement and the Massachusetts Department of Education Office of District
and School Turnaround model. As such, this component is an essential element of the
planning process.20

14
Telephone interview with Catherine Barbour, Op. cit.
15
“North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation Guide,” Op. cit., p. 18.
16
17
[1] O'Day, J.A., “Standards‐based reform and low‐performing schools: A case of reciprocal Accountability,” 2005, in
F.M. Hess (Ed.), Urban school reform: Lessons from San Diego, pp. 115‐137, found in: Le Floch, K.C., et al., “Case
Studies of Schools Receiving School Improvement Grants: Findings After the First Year of Implementation,” U.S.
Department of Education, May 2014, p. 44. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144015/pdf/20144015.pdf
[2] Zuckerman, M., “Attribution of success and failure revisited, or: The motivational bias is alive and well in
attribution theory,” Journal of Personality, 2006, pp. 245‐287. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467‐
6494.1979.tb00202.x/abstract
18
[3] Le Floch, K.C., et al., Op. cit., p. 44.
19
“Comprehensive Needs Assessment,” U.S. Department of Education, 2001.
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/compneedsassessment.pdf
20
[1] “A Continuous Cycle of Improvement,” Massachusetts Office of District and School Turnaround: Theory of
Action. http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/turnaround/ODST‐theory.pdf
[2] “School Improvement,” Breaking Ranks, National Association of Secondary School Principals.
http://www.nassp.org/School‐Improvement


Ms. Barbour specifies that a comprehensive needs assessment is the foundation of any
strong improvement plan.21 The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)
agrees, arguing that a “thorough, unrelenting” assessment of a school allows for a necessary
baseline for reform.22 Comprehensive needs assessments should accomplish or adhere to
the following:

 Focus on student learning: all aspects of the review should ultimately relate back to
student learning and the impact of instruction, rather than the mechanics of
teachers’ practices and actions.23
 Hire/recruit third‐party organizations: Ms. Barbour argues that, when schools
conduct their own needs assessments, they are not as objective as they should be.
As a solution, she recommends recruiting the state education agency or a third‐
party vendor to conduct the assessment. If this external assessment is cost‐
prohibitive, districts should take care to remain as objective as possible during the
assessment process.24
 Include an internal review: the internal component of the assessment should
include school data analysis, an instructional review, and a school
processes/procedures review. In addition, districts should assess their own capacity
to support a school improvement initiative implementation.25
 Include an external review: districts should assess external factors, such as pressing
topics in the education community, new educational technologies, recent education
legislation, union presence, and labor supply.26
 Incorporate both quantitative and qualitative data: by examining multiple types of
data, districts can triangulate their analyses to ensure accuracy.27

While each needs assessment’s components and structure will vary by district, several
models for this procedure currently exist that offer basic frameworks for districts to adapt.
Noteworthy examples of comprehensive needs assessment frameworks are outlined
below.28

21
22
23
Ibid.
24
25
[2] Le Floch, K.C., et al., Op. cit., p. 104
26
[1] Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Needs assessment frameworks selected based on recommendation from: Telephone interview with Catherine
Barbour, Op. cit.


Cambridge Education – Comprehensive Needs Assessment Model

The Cambridge Education comprehensive needs assessment model, used by Charlotte‐
Mecklenburg Schools, among other districts, comprises five overarching categories, called
“dimensions.” In total, these dimensions include fourteen separate components of school
performance.29 Figure 1.1 below outlines these aspects of the Cambridge Education needs
assessment model, while Appendix A includes an example of one portion of a completed
assessment.

Figure 1.1: Cambridge Education Comprehensive Needs Assessment Model
DIMENSION SUB‐DIMENSION
Instructional Excellence and
1. High Expectations Communicated to All Teachers and Students
Alignment
2. Curriculum and Instructional Alignment
(Part I: Teaching and Learning)
Instructional Excellence and
Alignment 3. Data Analysis and Instructional Planning
(Part II: Support for Student 4. Student Support Services
Achievement)
5. Strategic Planning, Mission, and Vision
Leadership Capacity 6. Distributed Leadership and Collaboration
7. Monitoring Instruction in School
8. Teacher Quality and Experience
Professional Capacity 9. Quality of Professional Development
10. Talent Recruitment and Retention
Planning and Operational 11. Resource Allocation
Effectiveness 12. Facilities and Technology
13. Family Engagement
Families and Communities
14. Community Engagement
Source: NCDPI30

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development – Needs Assessment Tool

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) provides a free, online
school improvement tool that allows schools and school systems to conduct a
comprehensive needs assessment. The tool also allows district leaders to compare schools
within their school systems. Based on individual results, districts are then referred to

29
[1] “School Quality Review – Notes of Guidance for Schools and Reviewers,” Charlotte‐Mecklenburg Schools,
August, 2009.
http://www.cms.k12.nc.us/cmsdepartments/accountability/cfsi/Documents/SQR%20Notes%20of%20Guidance.p
df
30
Ibid., p. 53.


various professional development resources to help address issues identified in the
assessment. Metrics included within this initial needs assessment framework include:

 School climate and culture
 Curriculum and instruction
 Leadership
 Family and community engagement
 Professional development and staff capacity
 Assessment31

PRIORITIZATION OF NEEDS
It must be noted that school improvement models cannot decide the exact issue areas for a
school district to prioritize during its improvement process. These decisions are particularly
difficult for districts beginning the process from scratch, as they do not have historical data
or past initiatives to consult. Ms. Nicole Norton, Director of Funded Programs and School
Improvement at Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS), advises districts to select issue areas
with especially low data points. She adds that, because many of the priority areas are highly
interrelated, focusing efforts on a few areas will likely complement, rather than neglect,
lower‐prioritized components. Ms. Norton notes that most districts prioritize reading
achievement, math achievement, and school climate.32

Additional research advocates for selecting priority areas in a school’s improvement process
based on existing school/district initiatives and internal structures. Using this approach,
districts are less likely to feel as though they are reinventing the wheel at the start of the
process, preventing actors and stakeholders from being overwhelmed. Specifically, this
approach urges districts to consider the following questions at the start of an improvement
planning process:
 Where are your current efforts in targeting school improvement? How can you
leverage these efforts when determining school priorities?
 What existing plans (e.g., school and district improvement plans) might impact your
school improvement efforts? How are these plans used? If there are multiple plans,
how are planning efforts aligned across and within schools and districts? How can
these plans be leveraged?
 What other resources, initiatives, and policies should be leveraged to support
planning and implementation?33

31
“ASCD School Improvement Tool,” ASCD. http://sitool.ascd.org/Default.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f
32
Telephone interview with Nicole Norton, Op. cit.
33
“High School Improvement Process,” National High School Center, American Institutes for Research.
http://www.betterhighschools.org/eight/process.asp


Lastly, when setting priorities for school improvement, Ms. Norton indicates that many
schools may need to accommodate state, federal, and district requirements. For example,
MPS must adhere to Title I requirements within its continuous improvement plan. As
districts carry out their improvement planning processes, they should consider such
external factors if applicable.34

SETTING GOALS – SELECTING TARGETS, INDICATORS, AND MILESTONES
As a corollary to the identification of its most pressing needs, a district must set clear goals
to address these issue areas throughout the improvement planning process. Before
outlining the specific components recommended for inclusion within a district’s
improvement planning, Hanover presents recommendations for developing clear,
appropriate goals. This process often proves challenging for many districts because goals
must walk the line between unattainable and undemanding. Under the former conditions,
schools may demonstrate too little improvement, leaving actors and stakeholders
demoralized. Conversely, easy‐to‐reach goals may undermine a district’s improvement
efforts by not fully motivating teachers, students, and staff.35

Inevitably, a district engaged in the improvement planning process must set goals for each
of its priority areas. At this point, decision‐makers should consider the content of goals, as
well as the timeline to completion.36

GOAL COMPOSITION
Across the board, experts and secondary research suggest that improvement goals should
be rigorous yet attainable. If goals are set too high, districts may find that improvement
does not materialize and that stakeholders perceive efforts to be failures. Conversely, goals
set too low typically fail to catalyze adequate improvement. 37 Targets should present a
challenge, but those challenges should be reasonable. As districts navigate these decisions,
research suggests that goals should ultimately err on the side of not being challenging
enough: “it is better to start slow. If the strategies implemented to achieve a goal work well
and the target begins to appear too low, it can always be adjusted upward later.” 38 Ms.
Barbour defends this policy, stressing that low morale among key actors can have a negative
impact on a school’s improvement.39

34
35
Kutash, J., et al., “The School Turnaround Field Guide,” FSG Social Impact Advisors and The Wallace Foundation,
September 2010, p. 16. http://wallacefoundation.org/knowledge‐center/school‐leadership/district‐policy‐and‐
practice/Documents/The‐School‐Turnaround‐Field‐Guide.pdf
36
37
Kutash, J., et al., Op. cit., p. 16.
38
“School Improvement Planning: A Handbook,” Op. cit., p. 42.
39


GOAL TIMELINES
For all types of improvement goals, the NCDPI advises districts to structure long‐term goals
to contain short‐term interim goals. In addition, it suggests that these goals be aligned with
district calendars and that an entire school year be devoted to the planning process.40 Ms.
Barbour agrees, arguing that goals should first be set for a school year’s end but divided and
back‐mapped by school quarter, month, and even week, if possible. She adds that this type
of planning makes goals much more actionable, allowing schools to better identify
reasonable steps needed to hit end‐of‐the‐year targets.41 Research shows that schools can
be “turned around” within two to four years, with improvement in school environment and
culture occurring within two years and improvement in student performance occurring by
year two or three.42 As districts map out their improvement goals, considering these
schedule‐related suggestions and findings may lead to more realistic, impactful targets.

EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES
By one account, the education sector has been slower to adopt continuous improvement
than other types of organizations because “districts are not organized in ways that promote
continuous learning.” Some argue that because districts are structured more like learning
“silos” rather than integrated systems, it is more challenging for improvement initiatives to
affect each school.43 Here, Hanover Research presents effective ways to organize site‐based
and central office teams to lead school improvement efforts.

SCHOOL PRINCIPALS
Perhaps one of the most visible positions during the improvement process, a school
principal plays multiple roles within a school’s organization. A principal is tasked with
engaging and managing staff, leading and monitoring curriculum delivery, effectively
allocating resources, and responding to the demands of external stakeholders. Because a
principal’s influence extends throughout many school functions, this role has proven to be
especially important during the improvement process. Consequently, districts should pay
close attention to the quality of principals during the early stages of continuous
improvement and beyond.44

Best practices research identifies the following leadership qualities as essential for principals
to effectively execute the improvement process:

 Transformational: an ability to motivate and engage staff behind a strong
organizational vision

40
“North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation Guide,” op. cit., p. 17.
41
42
43
44
Le Floch, et al., Op. cit., p. 51.


 Instructional: knowledgeable about instructional issues and able to align school
activity to improve instruction
 Strategic: able to formulate strategy and translate that into concrete priorities45

In general, research shows that principals that exude one of the qualities outlined above are
more likely to rate high among the other two traits as well. Not indicative of a principal’s
ranking on these scales, however, is his or her experience. That is, new principals are just as
likely to possess these three traits and effectively execute continuous improvement as more
tenured principals.46 At the same time, case study research within the U.S. Department of
Education’s School Improvement Grant comprehensive report suggests that replacing a
school’s principal at the start of a continuous improvement initiative signals a symbolic
change in a school’s status quo that often helps catalyze positive results. 47 Though
controversial, this practice may offer districts a means of ensuring that effective leadership
is in place for continuous improvement.

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT GROUPS
While principals represent one major component of school improvement leadership,
experts suggest that distributing leadership across a school also helps to facilitate
implementation. This practice ensures a collaborative culture and can ultimately increase
buy‐in among key actors and stakeholders. Under this system, “school improvement
groups” collaborate to better understand school problems and assess needs, set priorities
for improvement, and select opportunities for making change. This practice also ensures
that diverse perspectives and experiences are incorporated into improvement strategy.48

This common practice of distributing improvement leadership involves building task forces
that include key stakeholders from various internal departments. Ms. Barbour suggests that
leadership groups be representative of who is going to be part of implementing a plan in
order to ensure commitment, buy‐in, and investment. Ms. Norton agrees, noting that each
of MPS’s schools has an instructional leadership team comprising the principal, assistant
principal, and teacher leaders that share responsibility for the school improvement
monitoring and implementation process. Research confirms this theory, stating that
teachers, parents, and community members should be included in the planning and
implementation phases.49

DISTRICT TASKFORCES
Principles for organizing at the school level also apply to the district level, as experts and
research suggest setting up improvement taskforces at this higher level. Just as with
schools, these taskforces should be composed of various stakeholders within the district

45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., p. 52.
47
Ibid.
48
49
“School Improvement Planning: A Handbook,” Op. cit.


rather than just the superintendent and his/her cabinet. Ms. Barbour explains this practice
further:
We encourage our districts to set up monitoring or steering committees at the
district level. These groups contain principals, Title I directors, curriculum council
members, special education directors, and key teacher leaders. This group should
meet on a fairly periodic basis to make course corrections and data‐based decisions
and then actively communicate those changes back out to schools.50

Ms. Norton’s advice echoes Ms. Barbour, and she further stresses that these leadership
teams should be representative of a district and responsible for communicating changes to
schools.51

Experts also advise that district taskforces take on a role of support throughout the planning
and implementation phases. Ms. Norton likens this approach to a caseload management
model in which schools receive ongoing support from the leadership body, often in the form
of site visits and training sessions. Ms. Barbour further explains that, for this culture of
support to take shape, district leadership teams need to undergo a paradigm shift in which
they view their function as support rather than compliance. “This is easier said than done,”
she adds, “as the central leadership team will feel the pressure of needing to reach certain
goals on time.”52

Ms. Barbour suggests that district leadership teams comprise 8 to 12 individuals. This is
consistent with recommendations from Learning Point Associates, which states that “teams
of 15 or fewer people are most effective.”53 In addition, some models recommend the use
of external change management organizations (CMOs) for additional support, though no
consensus exists regarding their effectiveness in facilitating the improvement process.54

50
51
52
[1] Ibid.
53
[1] Ibid.
[2] “Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Learning Points Associates, December, 2004, p. 7.
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf
54
Le Floch, et al., Op. cit., p. 104.


SECTION II: IMPLEMENTATION, MEASUREMENT,

AND ASSESSMENT

While continuous improvement is deeply embedded in for‐profit organizations across the
manufacturing, business, and healthcare sectors, the field of education has been slower to
adopt formal methodologies. Research cites infrequent and ineffective use of data when
explaining districts’ struggle to successfully execute and sustain improvement and
continuous improvement models.55 In fact, the very act of measuring and monitoring
improvement efforts causes stakeholders and actors to feel more invested in the initiative,
even if explicit compensation incentives are not tied to reaching targets.56 In this section,
Hanover outlines best practices for implementing, measuring, and assessing school
improvement across a variety of metrics. Hanover first details the criteria commonly used
for tracking school improvement and then provides well‐tested tools for measuring growth
along these categories throughout a plan’s rollout and beyond.

DATA COLLECTION – HOW IS SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT MEASURED?
As expected, the specific types of data collected and emphasized during the school
improvement process largely depend on districts’ comprehensive needs assessments and
top identified priorities. Ms. Norton recommends using an online data collection tool such
as MPS’s internally developed program. These tools allow schools to customize their
collection of data points as well as to adhere to district‐level mandates.57 While many
models and districts regard student achievement as the primary indicator of success, district
leaders should use several additional metrics to form a comprehensive perspective.58

As Figure 2.1 below indicates, common criteria for school improvement fall under four
categories: student learning, implementation, demographics, and school environment.
These categories should be viewed as fluid, given that each school improvement model uses
specific criteria slightly differently or uses them to track more than one outcome. For
example, demographic data used with absenteeism can help measure school environment
and student learning. 59 Nevertheless, this classification system does provide a logical
framework for understanding how districts and school improvement models measure
improvement. The following pages explain each of these metrics and their related
subcomponents, as well as best practices for tracking them during a school improvement
process.

55
56
Kaplan, R. and Miyake, D., “The Balanced Scorecard,” The School Administrator, Vol. 67, No. 2, February ,2010, pp.
10 – 15. http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=11784
57
58
[2] “Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Learning Points Associates, December, 2004, p. 4.
http://www.learningpt.org/pdfs/datause/guidebook.pdf
[3] Kutash, J., et al., Op. cit., p. 15.
59
Ibid., p. 16.


Figure 2.1: Common Metrics Used for School Improvement Initiatives
SCHOOL
STUDENT LEARNING DEMOGRAPHICS IMPLEMENTATION
ENVIRONMENT
•Standardized tests •Enrollment •School connectivity •Depth of

•Curriculum delivery •Race •School implementation
•Authentic •Gender climate/culture achieved
assessments •Parent, student, •Evaluation of
•Social and and teacher implementation
emotional learning perceptions of process
(SEL) school climate
•Attendance
•Drop‐out rates

Source: Secondary and primary sources60

STUDENT LEARNING
Student Achievement

Student achievement represents one of the most, if not the most, highly and frequently
prioritized tenet of school improvement across districts.61 Research shows that standardized
test scores are not the only way that successful school improvement plans track this key
component. Specifically, when measuring student achievement, school improvement plans
typically focus on the following indicators:62

 Rates of students performing at grade‐level by subject area
 Rates of proficiency on state assessments
 Graduation and attendance rates
 Rates of earning credits and grade‐level advancement
 Absenteeism and dropout rates

Because most school districts collect and have access to ample student achievement data,
this component of school improvement typically represents a large piece of the continuous

60
[1] Kutash, J., Op. cit., p. 16.
[2] Telephone interview with Nicole Norton, Op. cit.
[4] “Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Op. cit., p. 4.
[5] “Eight Elements of High School Improvement,” National High School Center at the American Institutes for
Research, January 2011, p. 4.
http://betterhighschools.org/pubs/documents/EightElementsMappingFramework.pdf
61
[2] “Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Op. cit., p.4
62
Kutash, J., Op. cit., p. 16.


improvement process. Consequently, research suggests that these data be handled
strategically and appropriately. In order to maximize the value of this information and its
ability to indicate a school’s level of improvement, some suggest structuring it into a three‐
tiered system.63 With this approach, student achievement data are divided into annual,
large‐scale assessment data, periodic assessment data, and ongoing classroom assessment
data. Each category of student achievement data is unique in its purpose, rate of collection,
and type of information that it provides, allowing for a holistic approach to improving
student achievement.

Figure 2.2 below further outlines the three‐tiered approach. These three interrelated tiers
allow districts to divide larger goals for the year into smaller, more tangible benchmarks.
Under Tier III, large‐scale data, such as state standardized tests, provide broad indicators of
a school’s effectiveness. These data are made available once per year and are often used to
communicate higher‐level trends to external stakeholders or to comply with state or federal
directives.64 However, once‐per‐year student achievement data tremendously limit the
feedback loop necessary to spur improvement throughout a school year.65 As such, it is
recommended that more granular student achievement data be tracked within a school
improvement model. This practice allows districts to track gains made within a specific
student population over the course of a school year, in addition year‐over‐year gains.66
Periodic assessment data can assist in tracking students’ progress in particular content areas
over the course of a year. Finally, ongoing classroom assessment data involve teachers
continuously assessing students in real time and adjusting lesson plans accordingly. With
this practice, each lesson and unit plan created should be based on, or at least cognizant of,
past assessment data.67

Figure 2.2: Structuring and Understanding Student Achievement Data
ASSESSMENT RATE OF
TIER TYPE OF FEEDBACK PRIMARY TARGET OF FEEDBACK
PURPOSE FEEDBACK
General accountability audience:
Tier III Annual large‐scale Infrequent General, broad policymakers, community,
administrators
Periodic grade
Tier II level and subject Administrators, teachers
area
Ongoing
Tier I Frequent Specific, narrow Teachers, students
classroom
68
Source: Learning Points Associates

63
[1] “Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Op. cit., p. 9.
64
“Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Op. cit., p. 9.
65
66
67
68
Ibid., p. 4.


Curriculum Delivery

In addition to student achievement data, districts typically track curriculum delivery. Ms.
Barbour notes that this component of school improvement is best assessed through
consistent, frequent classroom observations. When measuring this qualitative criterion,
districts may use the following standards:

 Curriculum and instruction are aligned to district, state, and national standards that
include college‐ and career‐readiness.
 Curriculum and core content courses are aligned vertically to ensure that students
possess necessary prerequisite content knowledge for higher‐level coursework
 Curriculum and core content courses are aligned horizontally to ensure similar
courses include common standards
 Curriculum and instruction are adapted to school organizational structures to
address the needs of all students69

As a tool for tracking curriculum delivery, Ms. Norton recommends using a rubric similar to
the Responsive Classroom model, an evidence‐based method of teaching designed to
improve both academic and social skills. The rubric identifies ten different practices for
teachers in the classroom, including positive language, establishing logical consequences,
and providing academic choice. 70 According to Ms. Norton, this rubric and others like it
ensure that classroom observations are aligned with improving student learning and
ultimately with the success of a school improvement plan.71

Social‐Emotional Learning (SEL)

Research demonstrates that SEL skills have a strong influence on student test scores and
overall academic experience, making them a logical component for school improvement
plans.72 While experts acknowledge the importance of SEL in advancing student learning
and school improvement, they also point out the difficulty that many districts have when
attempting to measure and quantify this criterion.73 This issue often causes SEL to lose
priority against other items in school improvement plans, if it is included at all.74 However,

69
“Eight Elements of High School Improvement,” National High School Center at the American Institutes for Research,
January 2011, p. 4. http://betterhighschools.org/pubs/documents/EightElementsMappingFramework.pdf
70
[2] “Responsive Classroom – Fact Sheet,” Northeast Foundation for Children.
http://www.responsiveclassroom.org/sites/default/files/pdf_files/rc_fact_sheet.pdf
71
72
Haggerty, K., et al., “Social‐Emotional Learning Assessment Measures for Middle‐School Youth,” Social
Development Research Group, University of Washington, July 30, 2010.
http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/RaikesReportFinalOct.pdf
73
74
Ibid.


research on this metric identifies 72 different instruments and tools used to measure the
social and emotional well‐being of students. Of these 72 instruments, only nine are
identified as having sound psychometric properties, as being readily available for schools to
access and obtain information on, and being general enough to apply to all types of districts
and schools. These tools include:
 Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale: Second Edition (BERS‐2)
 ASEBA: Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Teacher Report Form (TRF), and Youth Self‐
Report (YSR)
 Communities That Care (CTC) Survey
 The Comprehensive School Climate Inventory (CSCI)
 Developmental Assets Profile (DAP)
 Devereux Student Strengths Assessment (DESSA)
 School Social Behaviors Scale, Second Edition (SSBS‐2)
 Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scales (SSIS‐Rating Scale)
 Washington State Healthy Youth Survey75

The frequency at which SEL data are collected and analyzed varies depending on the tool
used and the age group identified. Nevertheless, these tools provide a strong foundation for
districts hoping to include this metric within their improvement initiatives.

DEMOGRAPHICS
Perhaps the most straightforward component of school improvement measurement,
demographic data allow districts to discern meaningful trends related to student
achievement and school climate. Experts suggest that districts should aim to “thoroughly
know the school population in order to clarify problems and needs.” While the types of
demographic data collected vary by district, driving questions to inform a district’s decision
about information to collect may include:

 Who are our students?
 What trends do we see in our student body
 What factors outside the school may help us understand our students?76

Demographic data collection enables districts to identify longitudinal trends, which offer
invaluable insight for targeting problem areas and making data‐driven decisions.77 As the

75
Haggerty, K., et al., “Social‐Emotional Learning Assessment Measures for Middle‐School Youth,” Social
Development Research Group, University of Washington, July 30, 2010.
http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/documents/RaikesReportFinalOct.pdf
76
Verbatim from: “Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts,” Op. cit., p. 11.
77
Ibid.


continuous improvement process progresses from year to year, districts should track these
trends afforded by the collection of demographic data paired with other achievement and
climate information. Districts should aim to collect the following information:

 Demographic information on the students that enroll in schools and their parents
 Mobility patterns in and out of grades and schools
 Student transportation needs
 Rate of enrollments in special programs, such as English as a second language (ESL),
special education, or after‐school programs
 Neighborhood characteristics
 Parent involvement
 Behavior and social problems of students78

Discussing the value of demographic information in MPS’s continuous improvement
process, Ms. Norton states that the district records trends in special education student
achievement by disaggregating demographic data. She notes, “With these data, we’re able
to closely track trends specific to special education students and make adjustments
accordingly.”79 As this example shows, districts should consider the types of demographic
data they collect when attempting to target specific student populations.

SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT
According to the National School Climate Center (NSCC), schools with positive school
climates offer “a safe and supportive school environment, in which students have positive
social relationships and are respected, engaged in their work and feel competent.”
Moreover, NSCC notes that this component of a school heavily influences student learning,
making it a high priority for many school improvement initiatives.80 School climate and
culture comprise myriad variables related to safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal
relationships and the institutional environment.81 While its ambiguity may prevent districts
from accurately and consistently tracking school climate and culture, Hanover has identified
several concrete variables that allow districts to include this element in their continuous
improvement plans:

 Student/teacher surveys of school environment
 Student attendance rates
 Rates of serious misconduct and violence

78
Verbatim from: Ibid.
79
80
“The School Climate Challenge,” National School Climate Center, pp. 4‐5.
http://www.ecs.org/html/projectspartners/nclc/docs/school‐climate‐challenge‐web.pdf
81
“FAQs about School Climate,” National School Climate Center. http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/faq.php


 Infrastructure improvement (e.g., dollars invested and response time to

maintenance problems)
 Parent engagement and satisfaction metrics (e.g., participation in meetings)
 Teacher and staff member attendance and retention rates82

IMPLEMENTATION
Also integral to the school improvement process is the continuous assessment of the
implementation itself. While districts track gains and losses in student achievement and
school environment, they should also evaluate how effectively they are adhering to
processes mapped out in their continuous improvement plans.83 As NCDPI notes, doing so
enables a district to make mid‐course adjustments to procedures as needed, increasing the
chances for gains in other criteria. This task is typically executed by the same individuals
that are responsible for the plan’s implementation.

Ms. Norton notes that MPS utilizes quarterly teacher, parent, and student survey data to
inform its analysis of its own implementation process. She elaborates on this assessment
component and argues that it is perhaps one of MPS’s most critical components for school
improvement:
We have a rigorous quarterly review process of our implementation. It’s a very
structured evaluation during which our instructional leadership team reviews our
strategy and action plan, the level of implementation achieved at that point, and
any noticeable impact on other factors such as student achievement and school
climate. This regular feedback ultimately helps with our goal‐setting. 84

To Ms. Norton’s point, the implementation evaluation process not only ensures efficiency, it
also keeps goals realistic and tangible. As previously indicated, improbable or unchallenging
goals may undermine the continuous improvement process altogether. Therefore, while the
measuring of evaluation may seem only peripherally related to school improvement, a solid,
well‐scrutinized plan directly impacts other high‐stakes measures.85
ONGOING ASSESSMENT AND DATA‐DRIVEN DECISION‐MAKING
As both Ms. Barbour and Ms. Norton stress, a district’s school improvement planning is only
worthwhile if collected data and resulting conclusions are repeatedly acted upon.86 Follow‐
up on conclusions drawn from data ensures that progress is made toward specific targets
within the plan. In fact, improvement models indicate that all decisions made regarding

82
[1] Kutash, J., Op. cit., p. 16.
[2] “FAQs about School Climate,” National School Climate Center. http://www.schoolclimate.org/climate/faq.php
83
84
Ibid.
85
Ibid.
86
[1] Ibid.


school improvement measures should be based on data, whether the data come from initial
needs assessments or from reviews later during the process. Ultimately, this information
should consistently be used when deciding whether to stay the course or change strategy.
With each change, districts should use data to determine its effectiveness compared to past
strategies.87

Figure 2.3 below delineates data‐driven decision‐making from a more traditional approach.
Data‐driven decision‐making entails intentional, fact‐based actions, while traditional
decision‐making relies on the status quo or biased interests/ideas. For example, data‐based
decision‐making requires staff assignments based on demonstrated skill rather than staff
member interest.88 Ultimately, school improvement models calling for this type of decision‐
making will require a complete paradigm shift in a district.

Figure 2.3: Comparison of Traditional and Data‐Driven Decision‐Making
DECISION‐MAKING BASED ON INTUITION, TRADITION, OR CONVENIENCE DATA‐DRIVEN DECISION‐MAKING
 Focused staff development programs as an
 Scattered staff development programs improvement strategy to address documented
problems/needs
 Budgetary decisions based on prior practice, priority  Budget allocations to programs based on data‐informed
programs needs
 Staff assignments based on interest and availability
 Staff assignments based on skills needed as indicated by
the data
 Reports to the community about school events
 Organized factual reports to the community about the
learning progress of students
 Goal setting by board members, administrators, or  Goal‐setting based on data about problems and
teachers based on votes, favorite initiatives, or fads possible explanations
 Staff meetings that focus on operations and the  Staff meetings that focus on strategies and issues raised
dissemination of information by the local school’s data
 Parent communication via twice‐a‐year conferences at  Regular parent communication regarding the progress
elementary “open houses” and newsletters of their children
 Grading systems based on each teacher’s criteria of
 Grading systems based on common student‐
performance criteria that report progress on the
completed work and participation
standards as well as work skills
 Periodic administrative team meetings focused solely  Administrative team meetings that focus on measured
on operations progress toward data‐based improvement goals
Source: Learning Point Associates89

87
88
89


COMMUNICATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS
As districts continue to use data, track progress, and adjust initiatives, they should also
consider communication practices. In particular, districts should be sure to communicate
“quick wins” when data indicate results early on. By signaling change, districts can build
momentum in the improvement process and boost stakeholder morale. 90 Contrarily,
research suggests that districts should prepare themselves for potential drops in measured
school improvement early during the implementation process. These “implementation
dips,” or brief periods when conditions worsen before a data‐backed solution takes hold
and catalyzes results, are natural to the improvement process. Rather than immediately
communicating failure or changing course, districts should allow time for change to take
place.91

90
Kutash, et al., Op. cit., p. 6.
91
“North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation Guide,” North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, September, 2013 p. 26. http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/councils/lea/previous/templates/sip‐
guide.pdf


SECTION III: REVIEW OF IMPROVEMENT

MODELS

In this section, Hanover presents a review of school improvement models, as identified by
best practices literature and expert interviews.

DAGGETT SYSTEM FOR EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION
The Daggett System for Effective Instruction is an approach to improving instruction and
instructional capacity. The model is informed by best practices research and meta‐analyses
on effective instruction and heavily focuses on supporting teachers. The following five
themes are the main drivers of the Daggett System:

 Leadership: A clear sense of purpose that empowers staff toward a common vision
 High expectations: For academic performance as well as college/career readiness
 Relationships: Valuing relationships as part of a successful learning environment
 Student opportunities: Both academic “stretch“ and personal skill development
opportunities
 Professional culture: Teachers, administration, and staff collaborate toward goals92

What follows in Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 are the Daggett System’s major implications for
teachers, instructional leaders, and organizational leadership.

Figure 3.1: The Daggett System for Teachers versus Traditional Models
TRADITIONAL WHAT IS NEEDED
“Deliver” instruction “Facilitate” learning
Student Learner
Test scores (easy to measure) Holistic assessment of learner (difficult to measure)
Proficiency Growth
Standardized approach Personalized, differentiated for each learner
Application focused
Content‐focused and narrow
Probing questions, scaffolding
Instruction in classroom only, bell schedule‐ limited Learning anyplace/anytime, 24x7, technology
Teacher‐centered Learner‐centered
Passive learning Active learning
Learn to do Do to learn
Smarter, balanced assessments with multiple purposes
Assessment has single purpose (proficiency)
(assess for proficiency, growth, formative, predictive)

92
Daggett, W. R., “The Daggett System for Effective Instruction – Where Research and Best Practices Meet,”
International Center for Leadership in Education, p. 3. http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/scholastic‐
achievement‐partners/downloads/Daggett_System_For_Effective_Instruction.pdf


Teacher as “sage on the stage” Teacher as facilitator of learning
Define learning in terms of required content to teach Define learning in terms of skills and knowledge as results
Define learning from specific skills up to total student Define learning from whole student down to specific skills
Cover as many topics as possible Help students learn priority skills deeply
Break apart curriculum Integrate curriculum
Entire curriculum mandatory Curriculum includes some student choice
Teach skills in isolation Teach skills in context
Focus on deficiencies Focus on proficiencies
Look for evidence of good teaching Look for evidence of good learning
Standardized procedures Shared best practices
Give separate assessments Give embedded assessments
Isolate instruction from community Connect instruction to community
Source: Daggett, W.R.93

Figure 3.2: The Daggett System for Instructional Leaders versus Traditional Models
Manage in the current system Change the system
Use past experience to solve problems Learn new ways to adapt and change
Promote standard procedures Adapt to unique situations
Replicate practices with fidelity Create new practices to meet student needs
Look to supervisors for answers Look to staff to take actions
Rely on individual expertise Share each other’s expertise
Authority Collaboration

Figure 3.3: The Daggett System for Organizational Leadership versus Traditional Models
Set vision by top leadership Set vision with wide contributions
Define vision in few academic measures Define vision in term of whole student needs (LC)
Place priority on short term results Place priority on long‐term improvement
Limit goals to best students Expand goals to all students
See vision as top leaders’ initiative Embrace vision universally
Instill fear with goals Inspire passion with goals
Rigid structures to support adult needs Flexible structure to support student needs
Top down change for ease of administration / compliance Top down support for bottom‐up reform – teachers as
– teachers as objects of change agents of change

93
Ibid., p. 10.
94
Ibid.
95
Ibid., p. 11.


RESULTS‐ORIENTED CYCLE OF INQUIRY
Recommended by Ms. Barbour, the Results‐Oriented Cycle of Inquiry (ROCI) is a simple
improvement framework that largely adheres to the best practices for establishing priorities
and making data‐based decisions outlined in Sections I and II. This framework, presented in
Figure 3.4, comprises five steps designed to promote focus on continuous improvement
within any type of organization, including schools. 96

Figure 3.4: Results‐Oriented Cycle of Inquiry
Set
Goals
Reflect
and Plan
Adjust
Assess Act

Source: Partners in School Innovation97

ROCI involves the following phases of implementation:

 Partner: Create an authentic partnership in which each person is able to bring their
unique knowledge, skills, and beliefs to the table in order to pursue a common
vision.
 Set goals: Understand gap between the school’s vision and their current reality and
collaboratively define goals which will focus everyone’s attention on the most
important levers and indicators of progress
 Plan: Create actionable plans that break down year‐long goals into achievable
quarterly, weekly, and even daily objectives, allocating time, resources, and actions
to achieve those goals.

96
“Results‐Oriented Cycle of Inquiry,” Partners in School Innovation.
http://www.partnersinschools.org/services/how‐we‐work/mindsets‐ways‐of‐working/our‐approach‐results‐oriented‐
cycle‐of‐inquiry/
97
Adapted from: Ibid.


 Act: Provide coaching, modeling, thought‐partnership and collaboration in order to
build the capacity of teachers and leaders to implement their plans effectively.
 Assess, reflect, adjust: Support school leaders and teachers to establish a regular
habit of using data to understand results, learn from what’s working and adjusting
practice to ensure that goals will be met.
 Close or renew: Create a space for reflection on the progress made; unpacking
successes in order to create momentum for the year ahead.98

BALANCED SCORECARD MODEL
Identified by both the Wallace Foundation and Ms. Barbour as a highly effective school
improvement model, the Balanced Scorecard Model is a data‐driven model that has had
proven success in facilitating school improvement in the Atlanta Public Schools system. The
model operates under two simple principles:

 If you cannot measure it, you cannot manage and improve it
 Measurement motivates99

Using these principles, the model relies on the idea that measuring progress can influence
key actors more than other incentives, such as pay increases. The model also includes the
following strategic components:

 Mobilize change through executive leadership
 Translate strategy into operational terms
 Align the organization to the strategy
 Make strategy everyone’s job
 Make strategy a continual process100

98
99
Kaplan, R. and Miyake, D., “The Balanced Scorecard,” The School Administrator, Vol. 67, No. 2, February ,2010, pp.
10‐15. http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=11784
100
Ibid.


MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION THEORY OF ACTION MODEL
Lastly, the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Office of District and School
Turnaround has been recognized for its “Theory of Action” model that has been used to
effectively facilitate school improvement efforts.101 As Figure 3.5 below shows, the model
involves the setting off strategic priorities, data‐based decision‐making, and the monitoring
of the implementation process itself.

Figure 3.5: Massachusetts Department of Education – Office of District and School
Turnaround, “Theory of Action” Model

Source: Massachusetts Department of Education102

101
Telephone interview with Ms. Barbour, Op. cit.
102
“Office of District and School Turnaround: Theory of Action,” Massachusetts Department of Education.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/apa/sss/turnaround/ODST‐theory.pdf


APPENDIX A: COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

Figure A.1: Cambridge Education Comprehensive Needs Assessment Example Rubric for Assessing Teaching and Learning
DIMENSION A: Instructional Excellence and Alignment Part I: Teaching and Learning
A1. High Expectations Communicated to All Teachers and Students
 How does the school administration model high expectations?
 How does the school create a culture for both faculty and students in which high expectations can be met?
 How does the school consistently maintain and communicate high expectations for students?
 How do teachers help students understand the quality of work necessary to meet these high expectations?
 How does the school ensure consistency within the school and subject area/departments on what constitutes “high‐quality” work?
 How does the use of instructional time in the classroom reflect high expectations and curriculum alignment?
Leading Embedded Emerging Lacking
The school: Exemplifies and models a The school: Frequently exemplifies and The school: Sometimes exemplifies and The school: Rarely exemplifies and
culture of high expectations at all times models a culture of high expectations models a culture of high expectations models a culture of high expectations.
Has developed, implemented, and Has developed, implemented, and Has developed, implemented, and Has not developed, implemented, or
frequently utilizes a plan that regularly utilizes a plan that communicates inconsistently utilizes a plan that utilized a plan that communicates clear
communicates clear goals with clear goals with instructional strategies communicates clear goals with goals with instructional strategies
instructional strategies aligned to the NC aligned to the NC Standard Course of instructional strategies aligned to the NC aligned to the NC Standard Course of
Standard Course of Study. Study. Standard Course of Study. Study.
Benchmarks expectations for student work Benchmarks expectations for student work Benchmarks expectations for student work Benchmarks expectations for student
that frequently incorporate national and that regularly incorporate national and that sometimes incorporate national and work that rarely incorporate national
state standards for all students. state standards for all students. state standards for all students. and state standards for some students.
Frequently develops and utilizes rubrics Regularly utilizes rubrics and exemplars of Inconsistently utilizes rubrics and Rarely or never utilizes rubrics or
and exemplars of high quality student high quality student work to ensure exemplars for assessing student work to exemplars for assessing student work
work to ensure teachers, students, and teachers and students understand the ensure teachers and students understand to ensure teachers and students
families understand the expectations for expectations for assignments. the expectations for assignments. understand the expectations for
assignments. assignments.
Fully utilizes instructional time for optimal Regularly utilizes instructional time for Inconsistently utilizes instructional time Rarely utilizes instructional time for
learning opportunities. optimal learning opportunities. for optimal learning opportunities. optimal learning opportunities.
Source: NCDPI103

103
Adapted from: “North Carolina School Improvement Planning Implementation Guide,” North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, September, 2013 p. 54.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/councils/lea/previous/templates/sip‐guide.pdf


PROJECT EVALUATION FORM

Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT

The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties which extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the
authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but
not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.


1700 K Street, NW, 8th Floor P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585

Washington, DC 20006 www.hanoverresearch.com


Best Practices For School Improvement Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practices For School Improvement Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Best Practices for School

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

SECTION I: ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF A

SECTION II: IMPLEMENTATION, MEASUREMENT,

•Standardized tests •Enrollment •School connectivity •Depth of

 Infrastructure improvement (e.g., dollars invested and response time to

SECTION III: REVIEW OF IMPROVEMENT

APPENDIX A: COMPREHENSIVE NEEDS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

PROJECT EVALUATION FORM

1700 K Street, NW, 8th Floor P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585

You might also like